News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Paying to get rid of pagination on Slate.com?. Parent comment

Re:Paying to get rid of pagination on Slate.com? by stevesearer on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @12:22PM (#7628583)
On the website I run, the readers which would be most likely to upgrade and pay for a 'happy reader' version of the website would actually be the same group of readers that advertisers would actually want interacting with advertisements.

I've tried to not bombard readers with a terrible experience and they appreciate it. Advertisers stick around and renew regularly, signaling that the real estate is still valuable enough to pay for. So in my experience, you don't have to sacrifice user experience to collect dollars from advertisers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Paying to get rid of pagination on Slate.com? by thenomad on Tuesday April 22, 2014 @04:19PM (#7630151)
Definitely true, but could those visitors generate more value for you as direct subscribers than as eyeballs? If they're even moderately likely to subscribe, I'd expect the answer to be "yes".

Of course, there's no one size fits all solution for monetising a site - depending on your skill with ad sales (sounds like you're selling direct?), your demographic, and so on, different solutions will work better.

[ Parent | on HN ]